Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: the true literal
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:39:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <l6obvp$f6d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <true-20131122032105@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <l6mmac$g1o$1@dont-email.me> <l6nq6v$134$1@dont-email.me> <l6nvi4$1vt$1@dont-email.me> <l6o81v$mpu$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:40:41 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6b9e92482af47766954d85fb77d372f5"; logging-data="15565"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/IrVQ7fq7WmUY8Jq8oprMk2ntrPkmOWjw="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
In-Reply-To: <l6o81v$mpu$1@dont-email.me>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dMi6QkwiB4MoWfBbg1p5DqnsnlE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:26583

On 11/22/2013 01:33 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 11/22/2013 11:07 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>> On 11/22/2013 09:37 AM, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>      To me, this seems a good example of a "difference that makes
>>> no difference" -- but a hair-splitting literal-ist (sorry) might
>>> find a difference just so he can feel smug about it.
>> [...]
>> In general discussion, including usenet, a hair-splitting literal-ist
>> (ok?) stance can be taken, and motivated by smug. Specification writers,
>> compiler writers, general purpose program writers,and others might
>> have other motivations. I'm certain that Stefan Ram was not seeking an
>> answer to his question in preparation to take a smug stance in some
>> discussion. My motivation to respond to Stefan's question was not smug,
>> even if it appeared hair-splitting and literalist. Other respondents
>> have not come off as smug to me. The (online) Free Dictionary has
>> literalist as a noun and literalistic as an adjective.
>
>      Jeff, I intended to apply the word "smug" to the writers
> of the JLS, not to you nor to Stefan nor to anyone else in
> this thread.

If I were in a cafe eating and drinking with a group that included
writers of the JLS I would tolerate a smug attitude up to a point.
The JLS is a fine specification as specifications go.

> If my post came across as insulting, I humbly
> crave pardon; I should know by now that Usenet does not always
> convey nuance well, and should not have expected that wryness
> would come across as such.
>

I appreciate the wryness, and other fine qualities of your posts
to this group. I hate smug posts, and try hard (perhaps not always
successfully) not to produce one. A lot of coffee this AM, may be
time for a sandwich an a more soothing beverage.